SNES vs Genesis

[burningdoom]

^ Must not have read gaming magazines back then. I remember Chrono Trigger being really hyped in the magazines. Full multi-page articles dedicated to it. Double-page spread ads for it. Always bragging about all these special new graphics techniques that would be getting used for the first time ever.

That must be it; not everyone probably read game magazines back in those days. Chrono Trigger was everywhere in all of the magazines I read. Then, a friend of mine got it and showed it to a bunch of us.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

I remember the adds in old EGM issues as well as various comic books I collected back then.  Not to mention the commercials I...previously mentioned. 

Sega might have done what "Nintendont", but I think most of that was coughing up the dust that Nintendo kicked up in their faces.   

While I'm on the SNES side of this debate, Genesis was actually kicking up dust in Nintendo's face for a long time during the 16-bit wars. Sega was a longtime sales leader in the U.S. during the early 90s.

[gf78]

While I'm on the SNES side of this debate, Genesis was actually kicking up dust in Nintendo's face for a long time during the 16-bit wars. Sega was a longtime sales leader in the U.S. during the early 90s.

Actually, you are quite correct.  But in the end, the two systems sold around 80 million total with Genesis at 30.75 million and SNES at 49.10 million. 

Sega did a fantastic job marketing the Genesis in the early days and as much as some people don't like it, Sega propped Sonic up against Mario which is why those two franchises are always compared when discussing the 16-bit consoles. 

In the end, Sega's biggest adversary wasn't Nintendo or Sony.  It was themselves.  They began unraveling when they released the Sega CD and followed it up with disaster after disaster.  Namely, the 32X and Saturn.  By this point, nothing they could do would keep the Dreamcast alive.

Funny anecdote:  Sega's total hardware sales for Master System, Genesis, Saturn and Dreamcast was under 64 million.  Nintendo's first system the NES alone sold nearly as much with 61.9 million and the first PlayStation sold over 102 million. 

[Warmsignal]

I always postulate that the Genesis is the reason why Nintendo decided to become the "alternative" game console following the SNES. Perhaps in part due to the ferocity of Sega's (seemingly) competent marketing, and their soured deal with Sony which was morphing into even more competition directed at them. I think this is why they opted to back out of the console race and make products that don't intend to directly compete with the industry leaders.

Sega on the other hand, IMO, had no idea what they were actually doing, no sense of the market, where it was heading or how to build products accordingly. As gf78 stated, they started to destroy themselves investing in the development of junky or misguided ideas that the market didn't want, or need. They kept burning consumers and retail with the cramming of bad ideas out onto the market in effort to call "first" around every corner. The Dreamcast too was a great and innovative system in theory, as cool as it is, was far from a perfect product in the end.

[gf78]

I always postulate that the Genesis is the reason why Nintendo decided to become the "alternative" game console following the SNES. Perhaps in part due to the ferocity of Sega's (seemingly) competent marketing, and their soured deal with Sony which was morphing into even more competition directed at them. I think this is why they opted to back out of the console race and make products that don't intend to directly compete with the industry leaders.

Sega on the other hand, IMO, had no idea what they were actually doing, no sense of the market, where it was heading or how to build products accordingly. As gf78 stated, they started to destroy themselves investing in the development of junky or misguided ideas that the market didn't want, or need. They kept burning consumers and retail with the cramming of bad ideas out onto the market in effort to call "first" around every corner. The Dreamcast too was a great and innovative system in theory, as cool as it is, was far from a perfect product in the end.

The idea to create a 32-bit add-on (32X) full well knowing and working on a dedicated 32-bit system (Saturn) at the same time is mind boggling.  Especially when you consider they never intended for the two to be cross-compatible. 

[Warmsignal]

I always postulate that the Genesis is the reason why Nintendo decided to become the "alternative" game console following the SNES. Perhaps in part due to the ferocity of Sega's (seemingly) competent marketing, and their soured deal with Sony which was morphing into even more competition directed at them. I think this is why they opted to back out of the console race and make products that don't intend to directly compete with the industry leaders.

Sega on the other hand, IMO, had no idea what they were actually doing, no sense of the market, where it was heading or how to build products accordingly. As gf78 stated, they started to destroy themselves investing in the development of junky or misguided ideas that the market didn't want, or need. They kept burning consumers and retail with the cramming of bad ideas out onto the market in effort to call "first" around every corner. The Dreamcast too was a great and innovative system in theory, as cool as it is, was far from a perfect product in the end.

The idea to create a 32-bit add-on (32X) full well knowing and working on a dedicated 32-bit system (Saturn) at the same time is mind boggling.  Especially when you consider they never intended for the two to be cross-compatible.

They went full retard there, I'll admit. On top of that, they were developing the Saturn to be a beefed up Genesis. They didn't realize that 3D gaming was where the market would head, so they Frankenstein'd the architecture of the Saturn at the last minute. Then they botched the release of the Saturn to retail!

[sworddude]

I always postulate that the Genesis is the reason why Nintendo decided to become the "alternative" game console following the SNES. Perhaps in part due to the ferocity of Sega's (seemingly) competent marketing, and their soured deal with Sony which was morphing into even more competition directed at them. I think this is why they opted to back out of the console race and make products that don't intend to directly compete with the industry leaders.

Sega on the other hand, IMO, had no idea what they were actually doing, no sense of the market, where it was heading or how to build products accordingly. As gf78 stated, they started to destroy themselves investing in the development of junky or misguided ideas that the market didn't want, or need. They kept burning consumers and retail with the cramming of bad ideas out onto the market in effort to call "first" around every corner. The Dreamcast too was a great and innovative system in theory, as cool as it is, was far from a perfect product in the end.

The idea to create a 32-bit add-on (32X) full well knowing and working on a dedicated 32-bit system (Saturn) at the same time is mind boggling.  Especially when you consider they never intended for the two to be cross-compatible.

They went full retard there, I'll admit. On top of that, they were developing the Saturn to be a beefed up Genesis. They didn't realize that 3D gaming was where the market would head, so they Frankenstein'd the architecture of the Saturn at the last minute. Then they botched the release of the Saturn to retail!

The sega saturn is one of the best 2d game system pretty much comparable to the neo geo aes/mvs with unfortunatly not to many games on it.

[Warmsignal]

I always postulate that the Genesis is the reason why Nintendo decided to become the "alternative" game console following the SNES. Perhaps in part due to the ferocity of Sega's (seemingly) competent marketing, and their soured deal with Sony which was morphing into even more competition directed at them. I think this is why they opted to back out of the console race and make products that don't intend to directly compete with the industry leaders.

Sega on the other hand, IMO, had no idea what they were actually doing, no sense of the market, where it was heading or how to build products accordingly. As gf78 stated, they started to destroy themselves investing in the development of junky or misguided ideas that the market didn't want, or need. They kept burning consumers and retail with the cramming of bad ideas out onto the market in effort to call "first" around every corner. The Dreamcast too was a great and innovative system in theory, as cool as it is, was far from a perfect product in the end.

The idea to create a 32-bit add-on (32X) full well knowing and working on a dedicated 32-bit system (Saturn) at the same time is mind boggling.  Especially when you consider they never intended for the two to be cross-compatible.

They went full retard there, I'll admit. On top of that, they were developing the Saturn to be a beefed up Genesis. They didn't realize that 3D gaming was where the market would head, so they Frankenstein'd the architecture of the Saturn at the last minute. Then they botched the release of the Saturn to retail!

The sega saturn is one of the best 2d game system pretty much comparable to the neo geo aes/mvs with unfortunatly not to many games on it.

I wouldn't disagree with that. It's just that in 1995 it was the wrong console to be releasing. 2d games were falling out of favor.

[sworddude]

I always postulate that the Genesis is the reason why Nintendo decided to become the "alternative" game console following the SNES. Perhaps in part due to the ferocity of Sega's (seemingly) competent marketing, and their soured deal with Sony which was morphing into even more competition directed at them. I think this is why they opted to back out of the console race and make products that don't intend to directly compete with the industry leaders.

Sega on the other hand, IMO, had no idea what they were actually doing, no sense of the market, where it was heading or how to build products accordingly. As gf78 stated, they started to destroy themselves investing in the development of junky or misguided ideas that the market didn't want, or need. They kept burning consumers and retail with the cramming of bad ideas out onto the market in effort to call "first" around every corner. The Dreamcast too was a great and innovative system in theory, as cool as it is, was far from a perfect product in the end.

The idea to create a 32-bit add-on (32X) full well knowing and working on a dedicated 32-bit system (Saturn) at the same time is mind boggling.  Especially when you consider they never intended for the two to be cross-compatible.

They went full retard there, I'll admit. On top of that, they were developing the Saturn to be a beefed up Genesis. They didn't realize that 3D gaming was where the market would head, so they Frankenstein'd the architecture of the Saturn at the last minute. Then they botched the release of the Saturn to retail!

The sega saturn is one of the best 2d game system pretty much comparable to the neo geo aes/mvs with unfortunatly not to many games on it.

I wouldn't disagree with that. It's just that in 1995 it was the wrong console to be releasing. 2d games were falling out of favor.

Very true games like tomb raider on the saturn look pretty bad.

Yet if we look at an example of the wii, new super mario bros wii out sold the combined two super mario galaxy titles. The mario galaxy games an awesome 3d series yet outsold by a same formula 2d mario bros game wich had some few differences compared to the ds title. I enjoyed mario galaxy way more than new super mario bros wii.

[sin2beta]

I always postulate that the Genesis is the reason why Nintendo decided to become the "alternative" game console following the SNES. Perhaps in part due to the ferocity of Sega's (seemingly) competent marketing, and their soured deal with Sony which was morphing into even more competition directed at them. I think this is why they opted to back out of the console race and make products that don't intend to directly compete with the industry leaders.

Sega on the other hand, IMO, had no idea what they were actually doing, no sense of the market, where it was heading or how to build products accordingly. As gf78 stated, they started to destroy themselves investing in the development of junky or misguided ideas that the market didn't want, or need. They kept burning consumers and retail with the cramming of bad ideas out onto the market in effort to call "first" around every corner. The Dreamcast too was a great and innovative system in theory, as cool as it is, was far from a perfect product in the end.

The idea to create a 32-bit add-on (32X) full well knowing and working on a dedicated 32-bit system (Saturn) at the same time is mind boggling.  Especially when you consider they never intended for the two to be cross-compatible.

They went full retard there, I'll admit. On top of that, they were developing the Saturn to be a beefed up Genesis. They didn't realize that 3D gaming was where the market would head, so they Frankenstein'd the architecture of the Saturn at the last minute. Then they botched the release of the Saturn to retail!

The sega saturn is one of the best 2d game system pretty much comparable to the neo geo aes/mvs with unfortunatly not to many games on it.

I wouldn't disagree with that. It's just that in 1995 it was the wrong console to be releasing. 2d games were falling out of favor.

I agree to an extent and disagree to an extent. I believe well over 95% of the 3D games from that generation sucked. From a good game perspective sticking to 2D was not a bad move. From a marketing perspective it was the wrong move. People were eating up crappy 3D games back then.

In short, I hold the unpopular opinion that in 1995 everyone should have still been releasing 2D consoles for the most part. The tech was barely there for 3D. The programming knowledge certainly wasn't. Doom was just 2 years earlier... Most programmers were not well versed with 3D enough until approximately 1998 for the most part. The main exceptions to this come from Nintendo. Even early games such as Mario 64 were decent in 3D. However, this is in large part to Miyamoto insisting on programming a character that is fun to control before really tackling the game.

I personally find it really hard to go back to 3D games of this era. The Saturn gets some play (although not a lot) from me because it was a 2D games machine. The PSOne is one of my least favorite consoles. I also am not a huge RPG fan, so take that into consideration with my opinion of the system.

[scarface88fg]

I know this is pretty much the Ford vs. Chevy or 9mm vs. 45 ACP of the video game world, but I can't really say which is better since I haven't had much experience with either system.

[gf78]

I always postulate that the Genesis is the reason why Nintendo decided to become the "alternative" game console following the SNES. Perhaps in part due to the ferocity of Sega's (seemingly) competent marketing, and their soured deal with Sony which was morphing into even more competition directed at them. I think this is why they opted to back out of the console race and make products that don't intend to directly compete with the industry leaders.

Sega on the other hand, IMO, had no idea what they were actually doing, no sense of the market, where it was heading or how to build products accordingly. As gf78 stated, they started to destroy themselves investing in the development of junky or misguided ideas that the market didn't want, or need. They kept burning consumers and retail with the cramming of bad ideas out onto the market in effort to call "first" around every corner. The Dreamcast too was a great and innovative system in theory, as cool as it is, was far from a perfect product in the end.

The idea to create a 32-bit add-on (32X) full well knowing and working on a dedicated 32-bit system (Saturn) at the same time is mind boggling.  Especially when you consider they never intended for the two to be cross-compatible.

They went full retard there, I'll admit. On top of that, they were developing the Saturn to be a beefed up Genesis. They didn't realize that 3D gaming was where the market would head, so they Frankenstein'd the architecture of the Saturn at the last minute. Then they botched the release of the Saturn to retail!

The sega saturn is one of the best 2d game system pretty much comparable to the neo geo aes/mvs with unfortunatly not to many games on it.

I wouldn't disagree with that. It's just that in 1995 it was the wrong console to be releasing. 2d games were falling out of favor.

I agree to an extent and disagree to an extent. I believe well over 95% of the 3D games from that generation sucked. From a good game perspective sticking to 2D was not a bad move. From a marketing perspective it was the wrong move. People were eating up crappy 3D games back then.

In short, I hold the unpopular opinion that in 1995 everyone should have still been releasing 2D consoles for the most part. The tech was barely there for 3D. The programming knowledge certainly wasn't. Doom was just 2 years earlier... Most programmers were not well versed with 3D enough until approximately 1998 for the most part. The main exceptions to this come from Nintendo. Even early games such as Mario 64 were decent in 3D. However, this is in large part to Miyamoto insisting on programming a character that is fun to control before really tackling the game.

I personally find it really hard to go back to 3D games of this era. The Saturn gets some play (although not a lot) from me because it was a 2D games machine. The PSOne is one of my least favorite consoles. I also am not a huge RPG fan, so take that into consideration with my opinion of the system.

I agree that those early 3D games are pretty rough to look at. But I'd programmers hadn't started on the path of 3D graphics then, where would games be now. Those first steps into 3D were rough, but I believe necessary for games to be what they are today. The saying "you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs" comes to mind.

[sin2beta]

I always postulate that the Genesis is the reason why Nintendo decided to become the "alternative" game console following the SNES. Perhaps in part due to the ferocity of Sega's (seemingly) competent marketing, and their soured deal with Sony which was morphing into even more competition directed at them. I think this is why they opted to back out of the console race and make products that don't intend to directly compete with the industry leaders.

Sega on the other hand, IMO, had no idea what they were actually doing, no sense of the market, where it was heading or how to build products accordingly. As gf78 stated, they started to destroy themselves investing in the development of junky or misguided ideas that the market didn't want, or need. They kept burning consumers and retail with the cramming of bad ideas out onto the market in effort to call "first" around every corner. The Dreamcast too was a great and innovative system in theory, as cool as it is, was far from a perfect product in the end.

The idea to create a 32-bit add-on (32X) full well knowing and working on a dedicated 32-bit system (Saturn) at the same time is mind boggling.  Especially when you consider they never intended for the two to be cross-compatible.

They went full retard there, I'll admit. On top of that, they were developing the Saturn to be a beefed up Genesis. They didn't realize that 3D gaming was where the market would head, so they Frankenstein'd the architecture of the Saturn at the last minute. Then they botched the release of the Saturn to retail!

The sega saturn is one of the best 2d game system pretty much comparable to the neo geo aes/mvs with unfortunatly not to many games on it.

I wouldn't disagree with that. It's just that in 1995 it was the wrong console to be releasing. 2d games were falling out of favor.

I agree to an extent and disagree to an extent. I believe well over 95% of the 3D games from that generation sucked. From a good game perspective sticking to 2D was not a bad move. From a marketing perspective it was the wrong move. People were eating up crappy 3D games back then.

In short, I hold the unpopular opinion that in 1995 everyone should have still been releasing 2D consoles for the most part. The tech was barely there for 3D. The programming knowledge certainly wasn't. Doom was just 2 years earlier... Most programmers were not well versed with 3D enough until approximately 1998 for the most part. The main exceptions to this come from Nintendo. Even early games such as Mario 64 were decent in 3D. However, this is in large part to Miyamoto insisting on programming a character that is fun to control before really tackling the game.

I personally find it really hard to go back to 3D games of this era. The Saturn gets some play (although not a lot) from me because it was a 2D games machine. The PSOne is one of my least favorite consoles. I also am not a huge RPG fan, so take that into consideration with my opinion of the system.

I agree that those early 3D games are pretty rough to look at. But I'd programmers hadn't started on the path of 3D graphics then, where would games be now. Those first steps into 3D were rough, but I believe necessary for games to be what they are today. The saying "you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs" comes to mind.

Partially true. In any case, I would choose not to play their learning attempts.

The problem with creating an excuse is that many early 3D games were good. Doom, Mario 64, Zelda OoT. etc. Each of these games were labors of love and done exceedingly well. And its not just the fun factor. I actually don't find Mario 64 that fun. However, it is well-crafted. Moreover, many 3D games were good if they knew their limitations and created boundaries to prevent bad stuff happening. Crash Bandicoot essentially put you in a hallway. Resident Evil never moved the camera. Each of these were kludges to prevent the games from being disasters. Most did not have this restraint. Few didn't need the restraints (such as the Id and Nintendo examples).

No eggs needed to be broken. Most of the games were just awful. The fifth generation of consoles was very important for me. It was the generation where I started to distinguish what I didn't like or what failed in video game design.

Things seemed to be figured out mostly in the 6th gen. The 7th gen rocked.

[sin2beta]

Oh, also keep in mind I can't get on too high of a horse talking about game quality. After all, I enjoy the SG-1000. 

[Warmsignal]

Oh, how I love the early 3D games, jagged polygons and all! They were just so simple, and that's why I like them so much. Part of what I dislike about modern games is that there's too much fluff for my taste, they're far too cinematic and surreal, and often over-complicating the formula of the gameplay. I can't wait for the renaissance of the early 3D game look and feel. It worked for Minecaft, why couldn't it be done with some other types of games?

[gf78]

Partially true. In any case, I would choose not to play their learning attempts.

The problem with creating an excuse is that many early 3D games were good. Doom, Mario 64, Zelda OoT. etc. Each of these games were labors of love and done exceedingly well. And its not just the fun factor. I actually don't find Mario 64 that fun. However, it is well-crafted. Moreover, many 3D games were good if they knew their limitations and created boundaries to prevent bad stuff happening. Crash Bandicoot essentially put you in a hallway. Resident Evil never moved the camera. Each of these were kludges to prevent the games from being disasters. Most did not have this restraint. Few didn't need the restraints (such as the Id and Nintendo examples).

No eggs needed to be broken. Most of the games were just awful. The fifth generation of consoles was very important for me. It was the generation where I started to distinguish what I didn't like or what failed in video game design.

Things seemed to be figured out mostly in the 6th gen. The 7th gen rocked.

While I agree that it's hard to go back and try to play those game because of how atrocious early 3D polygon titles look by today's standards, I would argue that they were extremely fun for their time and extremely important to the future of gaming. 

Doom actually wasn't a true 3D game.  From the Wiki:  "John Carmack had to make use of several tricks for these features to run smoothly on home computers of 1993. Most significantly, the Doom engine and levels are not truly three-dimensional; they are internally represented on a single plane, with height differences stored separately as displacements (a similar technique is still used in many games to create expansive outdoor environments). This allows a two point perspective projection, with several design limitations: for example, it is not possible in the Doom engine to create one room over another room in a level. However, thanks to its two-dimensional property, the environment can be rendered very quickly, using a binary space partitioning method. Another benefit was the clarity of the automap, as that could be rendered with 2D vectors without any risk of overlapping. Additionally, the BSP tree technology created by Bruce Naylor was used." 

While I agree that Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time are well made games, I didn't find them fun.  I did find Gran Turismo, Tomb Raider, Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, Dino Crisis and many others to be extremely fun and I have quite fond memories of them.  Again, they are hard to look at by today's standards, but they were extremely important and influenced the direction of games today.